Good News! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

[DaBruinz]

Silver with the latest update:

Sources: 'Bizarre' twists stifle NFL labor talks - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

One of the tidbits that I found interesting is this:

At that meeting in Long Island, in an obvious concession, the players offered to accept 48 percent of “all revenue,” a development first reported by ESPN’s Chris Mortensen. In exchange, according to the proposal, they would receive a more favorable salary-cap formula with higher per-team spending minimums than in the past and a provision that actual salary dollars must be spent toward achieving that figure, rather than “dead money” from contracts of players no longer on the team.

I wonder if the players were looking to eliminate the hit to the salary cap from "dead money" of player cuts... That would REALLY increase the revenue teams could use..

Here is another:

The players also balked at the owners’ insistence that the proposed “legacy fund” to aid retired players would come out of the salary cap – essentially meaning that the players, and not the league, would be responsible for those costs. Owners also clung to the possibility of adding two games to the regular season as early as 2014, a move to which most players are adamantly opposed.

So, the owners should be SOLELY responsible for the retired players and the current players shouldn't have to put any money towards helping their brethren? Yeah.. that's not selfish or anything...

 

[Rob0729]

One of the tidbits that I found interesting is this:



I wonder if the players were looking to eliminate the hit to the salary cap from "dead money" of player cuts... That would REALLY increase the revenue teams could use..

Here is another:


So, the owners should be SOLELY responsible for the retired players and the current players shouldn't have to put any money towards helping their brethren? Yeah.. that's not selfish or anything...

I don't know if they are getting rid of dead money hits or they are just going to require teams to spend more actual cash. What I think what they are trying to do is stop cheaper teams from using dead money to get above the cap floor. I don't know if that means they will do away with dead money charges. If they don't, teams like the Redskins might be in trouble.

I do agree that the legacy fund should be some sort of split between players and owners. Both parties are indebted to the players who came before them and both sides should take the financial responsibility to assist them financially.

 

[Shelterdog]

I don't know if they are getting rid of dead money hits or they are just going to require teams to spend more actual cash. What I think what they are trying to do is stop cheaper teams from using dead money to get above the cap floor. I don't know if that means they will do away with dead money charges. If they don't, teams like the Redskins might be in trouble.

Over the long term, you need to keep dead money if you're going to have meaningful signing bonuses. How they'd treat the dead money currently on team's payrolls is a different question.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't know if they are getting rid of dead money hits or they are just going to require teams to spend more actual cash. What I think what they are trying to do is stop cheaper teams from using dead money to get above the cap floor. I don't know if that means they will do away with dead money charges. If they don't, teams like the Redskins might be in trouble.

I do agree that the legacy fund should be some sort of split between players and owners. Both parties are indebted to the players who came before them and both sides should take the financial responsibility to assist them financially.

Rob - Read it again. It said Dead money from players not being on teams anymore. That is different than using the LTBE stuff to stash money in later years..

 

[Rob0729]

Rob - Read it again. It said Dead money from players not being on teams anymore. That is different than using the LTBE stuff to stash money in later years..

This applies to the 90% rule where the teams must spend at least 90% of their cap allotment in real dollars, cap dollars. That means that 10% can still be used to "dead money".

You didn't read the whole quote correctly, it says that teams must use real dollars to reach the new salary minimum. Here is the quote:

In exchange, according to the proposal, they would receive a more favorable salary-cap formula with higher per-team spending minimums than in the past and a provision that actual salary dollars must be spent toward achieving that figure, rather than “dead money” from contracts of players no longer on the team.

 

[lamafist]

I wonder if the players were looking to eliminate the hit to the salary cap from "dead money" of player cuts... That would REALLY increase the revenue teams could use..

I'm pretty sure that Silver was referring to the use of a cash floor, instead of a salary floor based on cap number.

So, the owners should be SOLELY responsible for the retired players and the current players shouldn't have to put any money towards helping their brethren? Yeah.. that's not selfish or anything...

Silver is reporting that the players objected to a proposal in which 100% of the money for retired players comes out of the players' cut, which is entirely different from suggesting that it should come 100% from the owners' cut.

Personally, I also don't see it as unreasonable to expect that the employers should bear the majority of the financial burden for providing the long-term health care coverage that they should have been providing all along. After all, it's not the present crop of players who've spent the past 25 years denying that these players' neurological and orthopedic problems had anything to do with having played football.

I do, however, realize that this negotiation isn't really about what is or isn't cosmically just, and expect the players to compromise on this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Both sides view opposition lawyers as a divisive force. There's a shock. The players, less experienced in the business aspect of sports, were giving in (a/k/a losing the negotiations) until their lawyers returned to the discussions. There's another shock.


Next, we'll be hearing that the attorneys on both sides want the agreement in writing!

 

[lamafist]

I think it is ridiculous that the players are asking for ridiculous things like 48% of sales tax and a percentage of all stadium revenues including non-football related events like concerts and other sporting events.

Considering the timing of when this came up, I assume it's a counter to the owners' asking for the expense credits for stadium construction that would take the players' cut down to 45%. I mean, if the owners are asking the players to chip in upwards of $270 million a year for stadium building, doesn't it make sense that the players would get a cut of the stadium's extra-football revenues?

The article also supports the original premise of this thread that there is a belief that Kessler (along with Quinn) are trying to derail the the process to go back to litigating the antitrust case. Since we have established in this thread that sources opinions are news, it is fair to state that. That said, the talk Kessler had before this week's meeting in context may not have been an example of his derailing the process based on this report. I admit I may have been wrong there. Although I still agree with the owners that I think he wants this brought back into the legal process over the negotiation.

As I said all along, there are a lot of bad guys in this process. IMHO, Kessler is the biggest bad guy at least up until this week. The owners with their lawyers may be quickly catching up to Kessler if they are throwing in last minute significant changes in the revenue sharings.

Yeah, looks like I may have been too quick to dismiss Florio's conjecture about this -- though I still think considering anything Florio doesn't explicitly source to be b.s. until demonstrated otherwise is a good policy.

I guess the question is how much of this is Kessler really pushing his own agenda, and how much is part of his designed role as 'bad cop' in the negotiations. I mean, I fully believe that his druthers would be to take this thing further in court, but I also don't think he'd be so brazenly working against his clients' declared interests. To a certain extent, he has to understand that he's an attack dog that the De Smith will offer to call off when he feels the league has called of theirs... doesn't he?

That said, I still think a deal will be done by the end of next week. Even with all this crap, they are still talking and putting in marathon sessions. I don't think either side really wants to miss any preseason games. As Chris Mortensen said, he has spoken to several experienced negotiators of deals of this magnitude and they said that many times right before the big breakthrough, one side or both sides will start taking things off the table or changing the parameters which makes the deal look to be going south only to come to an agreement shortly after. I guess it may be a negotiating tactic to see how far the other side is willing to go.

Yeah, I think there was bound to be some sort of push back after a couple weeks of good news, especially with details leaking out to the public and the two sides getting some outside perspectives on it. You'd think that would be a good thing, but people's natural confirmation bias means that getting a bunch of 'impartial' opinions at once results in you hearing a lot of what you felt all along.

The good news is that though both sides seem frustrated, there remains a sense of rising urgency, as opposed to the dreary fatalism immediately following the expiration of the CBA.

 

[lamafist]

Both sides view opposition lawyers as a divisive force. There's a shock. The players, less experienced in the business aspect of sports, were giving in (a/k/a losing the negotiations) until their lawyers returned to the discussions. There's another shock.


Next, we'll be hearing that the attorneys on both sides want the agreement in writing!

Clearly, the lawyers don't understand that the fairness of a football contract can't be measured on paper. What about the deal's intangibles?

Tell these legal stat geeks that nobody cares about all their fancy numbers because everyone knows you can get statistics to say whatever you want -- when it comes to a football bargaining agreement, you have to judge it with your gut.

 

[DolphinzSuck]

what's up with all this socialism

 

[Rob0729]

Considering the timing of when this came up, I assume it's a counter to the owners' asking for the expense credits for stadium construction that would take the players' cut down to 45%. I mean, if the owners are asking the players to chip in upwards of $270 million a year for stadium building, doesn't it make sense that the players would get a cut of the stadium's extra-football revenues?

I don't know. The timing is vague. The owners claim that is what derailed the talks. So it could have been before the owners changed the parameters. The idea of the players getting a share of revenue for non-football related stadium revenue is not a new one. That was floated by the players as far back as the 2006 negotiations if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately, we are in a case of "he said, she said" or "he said, he said". All the info we are getting is being spun by each side to suit their agenda. So we gotta wade through a lot of the spin to get the truth.

 

[Rob0729]

According to Albert Breer, the two sides made "major strides" in the revenue split issue. I still think a deal will be done by next Saturday.

Twitter

 

[Rob0729]

Also another good nugget from Breer:

Another nugget I can pass on: A lot of the murkiness/bad blood over what constitutes "all revenue" was worked out over the last 20 hours.

Twitter

 

[BlueThunder]

according to albert breer, the two sides made "major strides" in the revenue split issue. I still think a deal will be done by next saturday.

twitter

lord hear our prayer

 

[lamafist]

I don't know. The timing is vague. The owners claim that is what derailed the talks. So it could have been before the owners changed the parameters. The idea of the players getting a share of revenue for non-football related stadium revenue is not a new one. That was floated by the players as far back as the 2006 negotiations if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately, we are in a case of "he said, she said" or "he said, he said". All the info we are getting is being spun by each side to suit their agenda. So we gotta wade through a lot of the spin to get the truth.

I'm not really interested in the he-said-they-said element. It's all just theater. I don't even really have a problem with the owners wanting to change the verbally agreed upon parameters, if they really feel that it's necessary for the deal, as it's taking shape, to be something they can get on board with. Over the course of the negotiations, both sides are going to ask for things they don't really expect to get in order to get something for agreeing to take it off the table, and until the whole thing's over, it's going to be hard to say what's what.

The main point I was trying to get across was that there's nothing really outrageous with wanting a cut from the proceeds of all the events at a stadium the players have been contributing to the funding of over the tenure of the last CBA as well as, in all likelihood, the next. If the owners want that action all to themselves, they shouldn't expect supplementary credit deductions from the players' cut specifically for stadium construction.

 

[Frezo]

The main point I was trying to get across was that there's nothing really outrageous with wanting a cut from the proceeds of all the events at a stadium the players have been contributing to the funding of over the tenure of the last CBA as well as, in all likelihood, the next. If the owners want that action all to themselves, they shouldn't expect supplementary credit deductions from the players' cut specifically for stadium construction.

Might it then be proper for the players to return some of their endorsement money to the NFL? If the NFL didn't invest in them, they certainly would not have any endorsements.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

lord hear our prayer

Fiat Lux!

Fiat pedispilam!

 

[BlueThunder]

Quoting Genesis ? ( Let there be light)

The second one is tougher...Let there be football ???

 

[Joker]

hey!! I like this...let me try one

FIAT RIGOR GOODELL MORTIS

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not really interested in the he-said-they-said element. It's all just theater. I don't even really have a problem with the owners wanting to change the verbally agreed upon parameters, if they really feel that it's necessary for the deal, as it's taking shape, to be something they can get on board with. Over the course of the negotiations, both sides are going to ask for things they don't really expect to get in order to get something for agreeing to take it off the table, and until the whole thing's over, it's going to be hard to say what's what.

The main point I was trying to get across was that there's nothing really outrageous with wanting a cut from the proceeds of all the events at a stadium the players have been contributing to the funding of over the tenure of the last CBA as well as, in all likelihood, the next. If the owners want that action all to themselves, they shouldn't expect supplementary credit deductions from the players' cut specifically for stadium construction.

What are these suposive credit deductions? There were no credit deductions when Kraft built the Gillette because back then most stadiums were built with public money (in fact, Kraft originally assumed his stadium would be publically funded). So the players were not giving anything back when he built the stadium. Since most business mortgages are no more than 10 years in length, the original mortgage on Gillette is probably paid off with no concession from the players specifically to pay for it (he may have taken subsequent mortgages that might not be paid off). So even if the players give back concessions to future construction, why would they have a right to non-football related revenue from stadiums that are already paid for by the owners? That is as ludicrious as getting a percentage of the sales tax.

I mean Mike Vrabel supposably shot his way out of town a year and a half ago for suggesting that the players should get a percentage of Patriots Place. If the players are looking for non-football related revenues, there is good chance they are going after that too. Now Kraft paid/is paying for Patriots Place out of his profits from the Patriots, but it is a separate business from their football operations and the players never gave up and concessions in terms of money for Kraft to build it. Where does that end? Do the players want a share of the revenues from outside ventures that the owners purchased with their profits from their team?

I will agree that if in the new CBA, the players gave back some money specifically to build new stadiums that they should get a share of non-football related revenues from stadiums built with that money. But you cannot turn back the clock. They have absolutely no right to non-football related revenues generated in stadiums built prior to this CBA if they never specifically took less money to allow the owners to build stadiums. Even then, you can't go back and say they should have asked for it when they originally agreed to the concession and now they want it.

The NFL has some socialistic aspects to it, but it isn't a socialistic system. If the owners decided in the past to build a new stadium with their profits, they have no obligation to share non-football related revenues with the players or any other team. The players get a percentage of all football related revenues because their play on the field plays a huge role in generating that revenue. If U2 plays Gillette, the players do nothing to generate any revenue from that event.

As Frezo pointed out, doesn't it work both ways? Peyton Manning made about $30 million in endorsements last year. Don't the owners get a percentage of that money? I mean the owners make concessions many of the times to allow players to do endorsements and go to paid events. The owners promote the players through a number of different media vehicles that increases their exposure that allowes them to get better endorsement deals. Doesn't that entitle them to a percentage of the players' endorsements?